He says his mass shooting threat was a joke. His case may answer whether such posts are a crime.

David Puy, appearing in this 2018 jail booking photo, is appealing a felony charge under a state law that prohibits written threats of mass shootings. (Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, handout)

David Puy headed out to meet friends for dinner in West Boca. “On my way! School shooter,” he wrote in a Snapchat post with his photo.

The next day, when detectives asked about the reported threat, he admitted: “I wasn’t thinking.”

Advertisement

Just three months after the Parkland massacre, it also wasn’t smart, Puy’s lawyer concedes. But did the 19-year-old really commit a crime?

The case promises to have widespread implications beyond Puy’s felony prosecution. It’s become the first major test of a law strengthened partly in response to the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High.

Advertisement

At issue: Just what makes a written threat illegal? And are all young people and others who make fake threats about mass shootings — it happens on a fairly regular basis — in serious trouble?

Puy claimed he meant nothing sinister, and it was true that he had no guns, no mental health struggles, and no criminal history. Also, no schools were open when he posted on the social phone app.

Yet he still got charged with a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. The 2018 law prohibits putting threats of mass shootings or terrorism in writing.

Max Schachter, whose 14-year-old son, Alex, was killed in the Parkland shooting, says the law is meant to “hold people accountable.”

“It sounds like you’re on your way to commit a school shooting,” he said of Puy’s post. “You can’t yell fire in a movie theater and, you know, tell me, oh that doesn’t mean that. That doesn’t matter how you meant it … he should be held responsible for that.”

After trying unsuccessfully to get the charge dismissed, Puy took a plea deal for three years of probation, with no conviction to appear on his record. The judge put the punishment on hold pending a challenge now before the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Vigilance over threats

As schools and communities watch for any threats of gun violence, there’s a push for zero tolerance for offenders of all ages.

— Jose Calderon, 18, who wrote on Snapchat that he placed explosives on student cars parked at Olympic Heights High in West Boca. He said he thought it was funny to post, “if you try to leave early it will detonate.” He’s serving five years of probation.

— A 15-year-old student at Nova High in Davie last August posted on the Discord app that he wanted “to shoot up a school … I want people to suffer.” Records show the teen said he wasn’t serious, but was charged with making a false report to use firearms in a violent way. The outcome of the case is unclear.

He wrote last September about having nine minutes to gun down officers and as many teachers and classmates as possible.

“Some of these notes included specific dates/times that a shooting should occur, the locations on campus in which the act(s) should be carried out, and the order in which certain people should be attacked,” the Baker County Sheriff’s Office said in a Facebook post.

A portion of the plan, since shared publicly, reads, “Most likely there will be chaos. You will kill as much as you can before the other students or teachers notice.”

The student admitted he wrote the manifesto, but denied “having any intention of ever going through with it,” the sheriff’s office said.

But Judge Walker concluded that prosecutors could not prove the threat violated the law, according to the AP’s reporting, which also said she did not return calls for comment.

Randy Crews, a major with the Baker County Sheriff’s Office, highlighted the case and his agency’s disappointment during an Oct. 15 presentation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission.

“If other judges make these rulings, then we’ve kind of taken a bunch of steps backwards instead of moving forward,” Crews said at the meeting held in an Orlando-area hotel, according to an official transcript.

Schachter, a member of the commission, then said he favored a public rebuke of the judge for “working against efforts” to prevent “the next Parkland.”

“The commission should write a letter emphasizing the importance that if you’ve got all this evidence that releasing this person into society, knowing how violent, knowing how they want to kill all these people, and it’s irresponsible putting the community at risk,” he said.

Max Schachter speaks at a meeting of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission at the Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate, on Tuesday, October 15, 2019. (Ricardo Ramirez Buxeda/Orlando Sentinel)

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, who serves as commission chairman, called the judge’s decision “unfortunate and extremely troubling.”

But said it was “one decision by one court” and he favors leaving the law as is.

Advertisement

“I don't see anything in the statute that needs to be changed,” he said

Law targets social media threats

So what does the 2018 law say?

It prohibits people from making threats in writing or electronically to conduct a mass shooting or act of terrorism, and posting or transmitting the threat in any manner where any other person can view the threat.

Before Parkland, the law was limited to written threats sent by someone in a letter or email directly to a specific victim, or a member of that person’s family.

The limitations of that previous law led to a 2016 decision by a Florida appellate court to throw out the conviction of a Sarasota High School student who tweeted that he “can’t wait to shoot up my school soon.” The post on Twitter included a photo of a gun being put in a backpack.

The appeals court based in Lakeland ruled that social media threats fell outside the language in the law at that time.

The West Delray man’s attorney, Gregory Salnick, argued the Snapchat post was “vague. It’s subject to different interpretations. It doesn’t say he’s going to shoot up a school or go commit a school shooting.”

But the prosecutor said Puy’s statement, “On my way! School shooter,” is precisely what the law was intended to address.

“The Legislature did not, nor could it, create a list of phrases that would be acceptable that would indicate a ‘mass shooting’ or ‘act of terrorism,’” wrote Assistant State Attorney Michael Ryan Jr.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Colbath, who is now retired, refused to dismiss the charge, laying the groundwork for the plea deal and ensuing appeal.

At a hearing last year the judge explained, “It seems the Legislature wanted to criminalize people saying things on electronic media, social media that causes fear … I think [the law is] clear enough to put the average person on notice that you’re not supposed to do this.”

Colbath added that Puy’s “intent, did I mean to scare people, is not the question to be answered.”

Schachter agrees.

“Especially months after Parkland, we cannot afford to say, oh he didn’t mean this,” he said. “We have to make sure that if people say things online and on social media, we are going to take everybody’s threats seriously.”

First test of law

Puy’s lawyer says his client’s foolishness still doesn’t make him a lawbreaker.

“The Snapchat story by Mr. Puy, as I mentioned to the court, was not smart, was not funny, however post-Parkland there’s a heightened scrutiny on any joke or prank,” Salnick told the South Florida Sun Sentinel. “But it’s our position [what Puy did is] not a crime. We are hoping the appellate court will recognize that what was said was not criminal conduct.”

The appeal contends Puy’s “words alone do not and did not constitute a threat to conduct a mass shooting.” It adds that the post is subject to various interpretations and does not literally mean a threatening act under the law.

“The term ‘school shooter’ is a slang term used by today’s society and does not imply that his designation was a school,” Salnick wrote in December.

“When the words “School shooter” used as a salutation at the end of the declarative statement “On my way!”, no further elucidation is necessary as to how that remark is perceived, by anyone at large, as a threat in light of the (law.)”

Both sides will present arguments to a three-judge panel in West Palm Beach on March 10, with a decision expected by the summer.

Schachter said it’s important that the new law withstand the challenge.

Breaking News Alerts Newsletter

As it happens

Get updates on the coronavirus pandemic and other news as it happens with our free breaking news email alerts.

“Everybody knows you’re not allowed … to say, ‘On my way to the airport, or the courthouse, active shooter,’” he said. “This law prioritizes the safety and security of our citizens, and that’s what was lacking before.”

While this court fight continues, Florida lawmakers are now considering bills aimed at closing yet another loophole when it comes to mass shooting threats.